Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-04
Important Questions for Comsidera-
lion.

ia the EditOr Of the dispatch:
Mr.. w. L. Royal lately published q
notice to certain clients of his that the
presentment and prosecution OF the
men who rest on their bare tender OF
coupons for licenses and do business
without license, "is nothing but an
attempt to bully and caiole you (the
coupon-tenders) out of your rights nm
der the law.
Very well II that is bullying what
is Mr.. Royals conduct toward the
grand jury and the Commemorative
attorney Of this city? (He had just as
much right to include the judge)
On motion of this latter, the judge OF
the Hastings Court summoned the
grand jury, and gave them in charge the
statutes of barratry, and champerty,
and the law Of maintenance-two OF
them the mere -reassertion of the
English common law, and all
part of that law from time imme-
mortal. Upon the testimony OF sworn
witnesses they indicted Mr.. Royal for
one or more of these offences. At once
Mr. Royal ordered suit in the Fcfle-
rat cart against these jurors. citi-
zcns of Virginia, Qaying his dam
ages at $4,000 in each case,) for
doing their sworn duty under the order
ofthe court; and ne notifies them and the
pUdhc that he will change the 0enUe to
Alexandria or Norfolk or Lynchburg,
on the ground that he cannot get justice
in Richmond. What is the meaning OF
this? Is there a single man who thinks
MIR. Royal is such fool as to suppose
that even in Bonds court nc can re-
cover damages from these men? Ger
tainly mott If not, then his object must
be not TO recover damages, but to
"bully" the grand jury.
is that an offence? and if it is, what
is its nature?
Suppose Mr.. Royal had conceived
himself aggrieved by the action OF the
grand jury, and had abused one OF them
to his face..or threatened him with per-
sonal violence, or had struck him;
would he not have been arrested and
brought before the court for the out
rage, and been fined and imprisoned
for contempt in intimidating the jury
and obstructing the administration Of
JUSTICE u? But is it less an Outrage and
Intimidation and obstruction to let
these iurymen know that as they have
dared to indict Mr. Royal, he will hale
them one hundred and fifty miles away
from home, will take them from their
business-for two, years, if he pleases,
by continuing their cases-will com
pei them to employ counsel and
pay that and ell their personal expenses,
and will try their cases before a Judge,
who hates them, and in whose fairness
and Justice they know that not the least
reliance can be placed? Suppose the
grand juryman is so engrossed IN his
business-his means of liying-that he
cannot neglect it without great loss; or
so poor-as some of the best Of them
are-that he cannot afford to go away
from home or to employ lawyer.
Would not most men ia such circum-
stances prefer to be insulted or ASSAULT
ed; to have fight at once and be done
with it? And is not Mr.. Royals con-
duct as much an obstruction OF justice
and contempt Of court as If he had
resorted to insult or violence If it Is,
ought not the same measure OF punish
ment, byfne and imprisonment, to be
meted out to him for the one offence as
FOR the other?
Suppose this is not done; that no re-
lief is afforded the jury by the court ;
that no protection is given them against
this intimidation and loss and harass-
ment, this bullying" Can jurors be
expected to serve the Commonwealth,
and to indict people under the law,
"without fear, favor, or affection" il
they are to be prosecuted for doing
| their duty? The Office of grand juror
is thankless one at best few people
covet it. How many will discharge its
| duties if it costs man as much to in
dict o wrong-doer as it costs the wrong
doer to be convicted? Suppose every
murderer could sue the grand jury that
indicted him-before conviction, ii
he chose-and il he should be
| ecouitted, could recover damages from
the grand jury. How many murderers
would be indicted T? Who knew when
our friend Peter j. Burton had Gu.
verius indicted whether be would be
convicted or not ? Would he have been
indicted at all il the grand jury could
have been sued for the act See how Mr..
Royal would turnlloose upon society
every murderer not caught red-handed
in the act, and leave each one of them
to be dealt with by lynch law. Fol
when law don't protect society, society
will protect itself, rs It ought to do, BY
lynch law.
And why, to conclude, does Mr.